Birmingham hip resurfacing in patients who are seventy years of age or older

Long-term results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients 65 years of age or older

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MMHRA) is typically used in young and active patients because they have the most to gain from this bone-preserving procedure. However, there is very little long-term data on the performance of MMHRA in patients 65 years of age or older because of the efficacy of conventional total hip arthroplasty in this patient population.

METHODS

109 patients (124 hips) age ⩾65 years were treated with Conserve Plus MMHRA. There were 83 male and 26 female patients. Their mean age at surgery was 69.5 (range 65-83) years. UCLA hip scores, SF-12 quality of life score were collected at follow-up visits. Radiographic and survivorship analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SF-12 scores and UCLA scores were maintained over time except for a small decrease in activity. 4 patients underwent revision surgery. The 15-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship of the cohort was 93.7%. All revisions surgeries were successful at a mean follow-up time of 113 (range 30-218) months. Unusual radiographic findings from our previous publication did not progress over time except for 1 hip that showed a complete radiolucency around the acetabular component.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results clearly show that HRA is a viable prosthetic solution with many advantages for all active patients, regardless of their age at the time of surgery.

A Comparative Cohort Study With a 20-Year Age Gap: Hip Resurfacing in Patients Aged ≤35 Years and Patients Aged ≥55 Years

Background

This single-center retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate and compare implant survival and patient-reported outcome measures in 2 distinct age groups separated by 20 years who underwent hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Methods

Between 2005 and 2014, 2042 HRAs were performed by a single-surgeon, and 75 and 377 hips from patients aged ≤35 years and ≥55 years, respectively, were included in this study. Implant survival was determined for all available hips. Clinical features and patient-reported outcome measures were collected.

Results

Seven hips were revised, 4 for aseptic loosening of one or both components, one for infection, one for accelerated wear and metallosis, and one for femoral neck fracture. There was no difference in all-cause 10-year revision, with 97.1% (95% confidence interval 80.9 to 99.6) and 99.6% (95% confidence interval: 97 to 99.9) survivorship in younger and older patients, respectively (P = .246). Preoperatively, younger patients were less active than older patients on the Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) or University of California, Los Angeles, activity scale, but at follow-up, younger patients outpaced older ones.

Conclusion

Original to our study was the isolation and comparison of 2 distinct age groups. With excellent results in disparate age groups, HRA can be applied to a broad patient demographic and is suitable for those patients who want to achieve a high activity level as defined by Lower Extremity Activity Scale or University of California, Los Angeles, scores.

Patients With Modular-Neck Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Brief Five-Year Follow-Up Study

BACKGROUND

We have previously reported the early clinical results of a modular-neck stem identifying an early 2-year revision rate of 13% due to neck-stem corrosion. This report updates our findings to a midterm mean follow-up of 5 years.

METHODS

This is a consecutive retrospective review of 186 modular-neck hips in 175 patients with a mean follow-up period was 60.1 ± 22.9 months (range 24-100). We reviewed clinical findings, routine radiographs, detailed imaging (metal artifact reduction software-magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound), and serum ion levels of cobalt and chromium. We performed a survival analysis with the endpoint defined as revision total hip arthroplasty due to neck-stem corrosion.

RESULTS

We revised 41 hips (22.0%) for neck-stem corrosion. Clinical symptoms (groin pain ± local swelling) were consistently present in those that came for revision. Mean serum cobalt ion levels increased as time passed in all patients. Detailed image findings showed that larger fluid collections and local soft tissue masses were seen predominately in symptomatic patients. However, 14% of patients who underwent revision did not have positive magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound findings. The survival rate was 87% (95% confidence interval 81-92) at 3 years postoperatively and 72% (95% confidence interval 64-80) at 7 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

The revision rate for this modular-neck stem due to neck-stem corrosion at mid-term follow-up almost doubled in comparison to previous short-term results. It seems reasonable to consider clinical follow-up alone as symptoms, rather than blood testing for ion levels, seem to be the defining characteristic of failure.

Current expert views on metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Consensus of the 6th advanced Hip resurfacing course, Ghent, Belgium, May 2014

This paper reports the consensus of an international faculty of expert metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing surgeons, with a combined experience of over 40,000 cases, on the current status of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Indications, design and metallurgy issues, release of metal ions and adverse soft tissue reactions to particles, management of problematic cases and revisions, as well as required experience and training are covered. The overall consensus is that MoM hip resurfacing should not be banned and should be viewed separately from MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a large diameter head because of the different design and wear behaviour related to the taper/trunnion connection. The use of hip resurfacing has decreased worldwide but specialist centres continue to advocate hip resurfacing in young and active male patients. Regarding age the general recommendation is to avoid hip resurfacing in men older than 65 and in women older than 55, depending on the patient activity and bone quality. Female gender is considered a relative contraindication. Most surgeons would not implant a MoM hip in women who would still like a child. Regardless of gender, there is a consensus not to perform hip resurfacing in case of a femoral head size smaller than 46 mm and in patients with renal insufficiency or with a known metal allergy. Regarding follow-up of hip resurfacing and detection of adverse local tissue reactions, metal ion measurements, MRI and ultrasound are advocated depending on the local expertise. The consensus is that hip resurfacing should be limited to high volume hip surgeons, who are experienced in hip resurfacing or trained to perform hip resurfacing in a specialist centre.

Hip resurfacing: history, current status, and future

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) presents several advantages over conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA), including conservation and preservation of bone, reduced risk of dislocation, easy replication of hip biomechanics and easy revision if needed. It is a particularly appealing procedure for young patients. HRA has been performed for over 40 years following the same technological advances as THA. The bearing material used by most designs is metal-on-metal (MoM), which has the best compromise between strength and wear properties. However, MoM HRA has a specific set of possible complications. Aseptic femoral failures were initially the most prevalent cause for revision but progress in patient selection and surgical technique seem to have resolved this problem. Wear-related failures (high metal ion levels and adverse local tissue reactions) are now the main concern, and are essentially associated with poor acetabular component design and orientation, to which MoM is more sensitive than other bearing materials. The concept of functional coverage is key to understanding how MoM bearings are affected by edge wear. Only a 3-D assessment of cup position (e.g., the contact patch to rim distance) provides the necessary information to determine the role of cup positioning in relationship with abnormal bearing wear.The concept of hip resurfacing is more valid today than ever as the age of the patients in need of hip arthroplasty keeps getting lower. The recent publication of several excellent long-term survivorship results suggests that selection of a well-designed resurfacing system and accuracy in the placement of the cup can achieve long-term durability.

Short-term Results of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in the United States

Previous data on the survivorship of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implant have come from design surgeons and large national databases outside of the United States, and there is a lack of reported outcomes of surface replacement arthroplasty from US centers. A retrospective study was undertaken of 1271 hips treated with a BHR system (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, Tennessee) between June 2006 and September 2008 at 6 high-volume total joint centers in the United States. Demographic features, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and radiographic findings were recorded. Patients who did not have a 2-year follow-up visit were contacted by telephone. All patients were asked about complications, reoperations, or failure of the implants. Of the treated hips, 1144 (90%) had a minimum of 2 years of clinical follow-up (mean, 2.9 years; range, 1.8-4.2 years). Mean age was 52.3 years, and 75% of patients were men. Mean HHS improved from 55.8 preoperatively to 97.4 at the most recent follow-up (P<.001). There were 16 (1.4%) revisions to total hip arthroplasty (THA) for fracture (7), early dislocation (3), acetabular component malpositioning with pain (3; 1 with metallosis), infection (1), femoral loosening (1), and pseudotumor (1). There were 9 additional complications (0.8%) that did not require revision, including 3 dislocations treated with closed reduction, 2 fractures, 3 nerve injuries, and 1 pseudotumor. At 2 to 4 years of follow-up, the revision rate and the major complication rate with the BHR system were similar to those in previous reports of primary THA. Excellent clinical results were observed, but further follow-up is necessary to assess mid- and long-term results with the BHR system in US patients.

Intramedullary fixation of pertrochanteric fractures after hip resurfacing arthroplasty - Do we have the answer? Case report and literature review

OBJECTIVE

To report a case of a peri-prosthetic hip fracture fixed using a previously unreported technique of intramedullary nailing with dual proximal fixation.

CASE SUMMARY

An 81-year-old nursing home resident suffered a multi-fragmentary peri-prosthetic hip fracture around a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty (BHR), which was fixed using a novel technique.

DISCUSSION

Such fractures pose a significant surgical dilemma with regards to the optimal method of treatment. The increasing popularity of these implants suggests that these fractures will become increasingly common.

CONCLUSION

We believe that our technique provides a practical and satisfactory solution to these fractures.

Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17).

RESULTS

The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95-3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2-8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1-11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7-7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4-11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.

Survival and functional outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system in patients aged 65 and older at up to ten years of follow-up

PURPOSE

Limited evidence exists regarding the outcomes of hip resurfacing in elderly patients. The primary study aims were to determine the survival and functional outcome following Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) in patients ≥65 years at up to ten years of follow-up. Secondary aims were to explore factors affecting survival and functional outcome.

METHODS

Between 1997 and 2012, data were prospectively collected on 180 BHR (162 patients; mean age 69.2 years; 62 % male) implanted by one designing surgeon. Mean follow-up was six (range one to 14.4) years with no loss to follow-up. Outcomes of interest were implant survival, functional outcome [Oxford Hip Score (OHS)] and radiological evidence of implant failure.

RESULTS

Three hips were revised, giving an overall cumulative survival of 96.4 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 90.3-100] at ten years. Survival of 111 male BHR was 98.9 % (95 % CI 94.8-100) at ten years (one revision) compared with 91.9 % (95 % CI 77.0-100) in 69 female BHR (two revisions). Survival was affected by age (p = 0.014) and femoral head size (p = 0.024) but not by gender (p = 0.079). Median pre-operative OHS was 50.0 % [interquartile range (IQR) 37.5-68.8], improving to 4.4 % (IQR 0-10.4) postoperatively. Men had significantly better postoperative OHSs compared with women (median male OHS 2.1 % versus 6.3 % female OHS; p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Good survival and functional outcomes were achieved with the BHR at ten years in men and women ≥65 years. Despite registry findings to the contrary, age alone should not be a contraindication for hip resurfacing in centres with expertise in this procedure.

Cost-utility of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared to conventional total hip replacement in young active patients with osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoM HRA) has emerged as an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) for younger active patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Birmingham hip resurfacing is the most common MoM HRA in Alberta, and is therefore compared with conventional THA.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the expected cost-utility of MoM HRA versus THA, in younger patients with OA, using a decision analytic model with a 15-year time horizon.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the expected cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of MoM HRA versus THA from a health care payer perspective. The base case considered patients with OA aged 50 years; men comprised 65.9% of the cohort. Sensitivity analyses evaluated cohort age, utility values, failure probabilities, and treatment costs. Data were derived from the Hip Improvement Project and the Hip and Knee Replacement Pilot databases in Alberta, the 2010 National Joint Replacement Registry of the Australian Orthopaedic Association, and the literature.

RESULTS

In the base case, THA was dominated by MoM HRA (incremental mean costs of -$583 and incremental mean QALYs of 0.079). In subgroup analyses, THA remained dominated when cohort age was 40 years instead of 50 years or when only men were assessed. THA dominated when the cohort age was 60 years or when only women were assessed. Results were sensitive to utilities, surgery costs, and MoM HRA revision and conversion probabilities. At a willingness-to-pay of Can $50,000/QALY, there was a 58% probability that MoM HRA is cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that, on average, MoM HRA was preferred to THA for younger and male patients, but THA is still a reasonable option if the patient or clinician prefers given the small absolute differences between the options and the confidence ellipses around the cost-effectiveness estimates.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients aged 65 or older

There is little information regarding the clinical performance of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in older patients. Eighty-seven patients (99 hips) aged 65 years or older received HRA while a control group of 52 patients (64 hips) received a primary THA. The average age was 69.2 years for the HRA group and 71.9 years for the THA group. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 13 years. UCLA walking, function and activity scores and SF-12 scores were higher in the HRA group. At 10 years, the Kaplan-Meier overall survivorship rates were 96.7% for the HRA group and 91.2% for the THA group (p = 0.3174). We suggest considering hip resurfacing for patients 65 or older in centres where there is expertise in performing this procedure.

Hip resurfacing: a systematic review of literature

PURPOSE

We conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to take stock of hip resurfacing according to the principle of "evidence based medicine". Our main objective was to compare the rate of revision of resurfacing implants with survival limits set by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken of all published (Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE) literature research databases up to July 2012 as recommended by the PRISMA statement. Data extraction focused on functional outcomes, complications and survival rates. The survival rates of implants were analysed according to the mean of the series in comparison to the NICE criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were identified and included 26,456 cases with an average of 499.17 ± 856.7 (range, 38-5000) cases per study. The median survival was 95.57 % ± 3.7 % (range, 84-100). The percentage of studies which satisfied the criteria set by NICE was 69.8 %. In terms of cumulative revision rates pondered by the number of implants, BHR®, Conserve Plus® and Cormet® showed the best results. The mean postoperative score was 91.2 ± 7.72 (range, 68.3-98.6). There was no statistically significant difference between implants in terms of functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the current evidence base, this review of the literature emphasises the importance of certain parameters that can improve the results of resurfacing. The type of implant seems to play an important role as does patient selection.